Comments on: Mocking the Media Mock Bracket

By: nvr1983

nvr1983 — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 17:49:49 +0000

Ok. As you can see we don’t coordinate our comments, so refer to rtmsf’s comment for his thoughts instead of my speculation on his thoughts.

By: nvr1983

nvr1983 — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 17:48:53 +0000

Thanks for pointing out Whelliston’s post. It’s a pretty good column. I’m not sure if rtmsf was aware of the computer simulation of the conference tournaments, which I think is absurd. I know there is some randomness in the conference tournaments (look at a mediocre Georgia team winning the SEC title last year), but to use computer-generated results to predict who will win a conference tournament seems pretty sketchy to me.

Re: Cornell. Could you explain the competition/location restrictions that make a team with a RPI of 110 and SOS of 276 (today’s numbers because I don’t know how to find their numbers from that day) into a #11 seed?

One thing about the NCAA’s inclusion of non-mainstream media. I think citing Whelliston as simply a “blogger” is somewhat disingenuous since he worked for ESPN before their recent fiasco so he is more of a hybrid than almost any other college basketball blogger.

By: rtmsf

rtmsf — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 17:47:37 +0000

Tim – thanks for the tip on Whelliston, it does make things a lot clearer. The key takeaway we read from it is that there were technical issues that caused the mock cmte to seed lines 6 and below based solely on RPI. Apparently they were the guinea pigs in terms of testing out this new software.

By: tim

tim — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 16:16:12 +0000

Please read Kyle Whelliston’s post on the mock selection process. It explains pretty much every decision made in this bracket.

Cornell is an 11 seed because of competition/location restrictions. Most of the other “odd” seedings are because of NCAA rules regarding where teams can be placed or because the NCAA decided certain teams we assume will win their conference did not.

As for “Big Name” reporters, well, Whelliston is a blogger, and he was there, and like I said, his column explains pretty much everything.

By: Patrick Marshall

Patrick Marshall — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 15:28:49 +0000

Since they have had all of these “Big Name” reporters doing this mock bracket the last few years, maybe next year can be the Blogosphere writers taking part in the Mock Draft. :)

By: Todd

Todd — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 14:19:00 +0000

From what I’ve read elsewhere (Seth Davis’ column), the reporters were given a set of circumstances that had “unfolded” in conference tournaments, one of which was Georgetown reaching the Big East Tournament Final. Obviously that doesn’t explain Cornell as an 11 seed. However, it does make sense that to try to simulate the real deal that they’d throw conference tournament situations at the committee so that they have to adjust.

By: CofC

CofC — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 13:42:46 +0000

I agree with most of what you said, however. Saying that if Davidson wins the SoCon again gets them no lower than a #10 is probably accurate, but they don’t have Davidson winning the SoCon. They have the College of Charleston in at a #13 seed, now I would love to see this (it’s my alma mater) but most likely, Davidson will plow through the SoCon tournament again this year.

To add, Mizzou at a #4 is quite a stretch.

By: rtmsf

rtmsf — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 06:00:45 +0000

DeCourcy makes it seem like being in a room for 12 hrs is akin to Guantanamo, but we guess he probably never actually did any work in college so it might make sense. There’s no excuse for this bracket, though. None.

By: Jameson

Jameson — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 05:32:19 +0000

I was shocked when I saw their bracket. That sat together for how long in a conference room and that’s the best they could come up with? I know the selection committee can do some crazy things and they were trying to mock the selection committee, but this bracket is absolutely absurd.